Hot Topics:

Ed Norden: The Stormwater Dilemma

Posted:
02/24/2018 06:50:54 PM MST

Ed Norden

The Cañon City Council on Monday voted to table the proposed doubling of stormwater fees pending further explanation of how the money is now being spent. I attended and while I agree about the size of the stormwater problem and the costs, I was also dismayed at some of the misinformation that was being tossed around the room.

I'm no hydraulics engineer, but I watched the floodwaters flow across north Cañon in 1991, 1992, and 1996. In my 12 years as a Fremont County Commissioner and a 35-year resident of Cañon City, I also have been witness to what has and what has not been accomplished.

Consternation expressed Monday over the proposed stormwater fee increase goes back to flood waters that pour into Cañon City from beyond the city's boundaries. However, as Central Avenue resident Guy Baney pointed out, there are many places across north Canon where stormwater approaches the city in large ditches and arroyos only to be choked off into narrow tubes and culverts as it pours through town. He noted that the large WPA ditch that flows past KRLN and through Circle Drive narrows into an underground tube that passes just east of Big R.

Advertisement

Similarly, I recall back in the 1990s when then-City Administrator Steve Thacker shared photos of large culverts north of Central Avenue and Orchard moving large volumes of water only to dump into an 18-inch drainage way a half block east of Stagecoach Drive and Pear. Take a look. Mistakes were made more than 100 years ago as the area developed, but the city has its own shortcomings in the past 30 years allowing such areas like Stagecoach and Dawson Ranch to develop without ample flood control to prevent street damage.

Do residents and developments around Cañon City's perimeter bear part of the responsibility? Certainly, but to what extent? How far north or south do you go? Councilwoman Ashley Smith expressed optimism that the city-county-ditch company group that has been meeting can map out a proposed area. It would outline a stormwater utility district so that some of the burden of storm fees can move beyond city boundaries into those areas where floodwaters recognize no boundaries. It would be a good first step to identify those areas around Cañon City's entire perimeter that should perhaps be included in a stormwater utility.

But not only do unincorporated areas flood into the city, city stormwater also floods across unincorporated areas. That's certainly the case along north and south Sherrelwood where there is not enough stormwater money to undertake a more than $1 million dollar project to deal with stormwater that flows from the Abbey, under U.S. 50, and across the Sherrelwood area towards Four Mile.

I did take exception to some of the claims being tossed around City Council that the county refuses to accept responsibility for flood waters that flow into Canon. A quick history lesson shows that the C-3 and C-4 flood detention dams built in the 1960s in the vicinity of Shadow Hills and Cotter with county and federal dollars made a huge difference. As recent as 2005-2006, the county with assistance from NRCS spent $660,000 to rehabilitate the C-4 detention dam. Former County Engineer Jack Effinger points out that those dams protect south Canon and Lincoln Park from Ninth Street eastward to the point that he was able to convince FEMA to eliminate much of Lincoln Park from FEMA floodplain maps.

Fremont County with help from FEMA also spent nearly $190,000 three years ago to repair the flood dike that was washing out the Arkansas Riverwalk west of the Raynolds Bridge. I'm told the county is just now being reimbursed by FEMA for its cost share of that project. The county continues to play an active role in flood mitigation.

Effinger notes that it was also in the 1960s that the Soil Conservation Service wanted to build a Red Canyon Dam north of Cañon City to protect much of the area now in question, but people protested because it would have eliminated a large section of north Canon from any type of development.

Councilman Gill noted Monday that Cañon City residents pay a minuscule amount in property taxes. Agreed. But he charged that the county should pony up for stormwater issues because most of your property tax dollars go to Fremont County. Not hardly. The bulk of everyone's property taxes go to your local school district. I don't know what tax statement he was looking at, but my property tax bill shows 52 percent going to RE-1 Schools, 22 percent to the Cañon City Fire District, 15 percent to Fremont County, and yes only 4 percent to the City of Cañon City. But 15 percent of the county is not the bulk of your tax bill.

One statement that needs the most clarification is from former Councilman Dennis Wied. I count Dennis as a good friend, but his claim that the 1 percent sales tax to the Sheriff freed up $4 million in county money is simply not so. Prior to the sales tax approval, the county provided nearly $4 million to the Sheriff from the General Fund and the county's 2018 budget shows that they continue to do so. Remember the bulk of that new revenue went to fund a new fleet of patrol vehicles, the multi-million dollar cost of renovating the jail's kitchen and laundry, and the electronic locks and security project now underway. Those projects are being paid off in annual installments through the rest of the 10 years until sunset.

I will concur with Councilman Gill on one point. Although doubling of the stormwater fee may seem excessive, our Cañon City property taxes are so artificially low that we might want to consider that we are getting a bargain. The city relies primarily on sales tax for its revenue, but there's a big difference there, as well. While the city sales tax applies to all grocery purchases, the Fremont County sales tax is not collected on groceries.

My hope is that in the interim the council will find the answers they are looking for and that whatever stormwater fee is settled upon will do more than shift annual maintenance fees to other city departments. Spending some money on real infrastructure improvements would be great although one wonders how we can ever reverse 150 years of failure to properly deal with flood waters.

Article Comments

We reserve the right to remove any comment that violates our ground rules, is spammy, NSFW, defamatory, rude, reckless to the community, etc.

We expect everyone to be respectful of other commenters. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but there's no need to act like a jerk.

Use your own words (don't copy and paste from elsewhere), be honest and don't pretend to be someone (or something) you're not.

Our commenting section is self-policing, so if you see a comment that violates our ground rules, flag it (mouse over to the far right of the commenter's name until you see the flag symbol and click that), then we'll review it.